RNC ... What a bunch of babies

phobicsquirrel

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/16/republican-party-officials-to-vote-on-whether-to-boycott-cnn-nbc-over-clinton/

lol, RNC wants to boycott and not even have anything to do with cbs and nbc during presidential debates if they go a head with a clinton non-fiction story about her life. Talk about little babies. I don't even think Clinton has said she is running. I hope she does and hope it does air, then what are they going to do, it'll really hurt them with voters. Though I don't want clinton as POTUS I do find this really, really pathetic and so 1st grade.

beatnic

Let's have the debates on FOX.

jadelt

phobicsquirrel:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/16/republican-party-officials-to-vote-on-whether-to-boycott-cnn-nbc-over-clinton/

lol, RNC wants to boycott and not even have anything to do with cbs and nbc during presidential debates if they go a head with a clinton non-fiction story about her life. Talk about little babies. I don't even think Clinton has said she is running. I hope she does and hope it does air, then what are they going to do, it'll really hurt them with voters. Though I don't want clinton as POTUS I do find this really, really pathetic and so 1st grade.

OMG I agree with the squirrel ! (well ...... the Clinton part anyway)

perkinke

As an unaffiliated voter this kind of thing is extremely disappointing. Not that the political debates over the last couple decades have been of any use, but it's just petulant nonsense. Pair this with the guy that the state party chose as their new Chairman (discredited scientist and conspiracy theory whackadoodle) and I take it as a BIG F-U to those of us in the middle. It simply amazes me that the rank and file have allowed that party to be taken over by the extremists. My Republican friends mostly shake their heads and change the topic.

Though the people making these decisions ought to read a bit more Twain: "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." NBC and CNN lose nothing in this, in fact they probably gain viewers simply through the publicity while the party looks churlish and ridiculous to those outside the hardcore sect of the party.

beatnic

perkinke:

As an unaffiliated voter this kind of thing is extremely disappointing. Not that the political debates over the last couple decades have been of any use, but it's just petulant nonsense. Pair this with the guy that the state party chose as their new Chairman (discredited scientist and conspiracy theory whackadoodle) and I take it as a BIG F-U to those of us in the middle. It simply amazes me that the rank and file have allowed that party to be taken over by the extremists. My Republican friends mostly shake their heads and change the topic.

Though the people making these decisions ought to read a bit more Twain: "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." NBC and CNN lose nothing in this, in fact they probably gain viewers simply through the publicity while the party looks churlish and ridiculous to those outside the hardcore sect of the party.

Perkinke, you needn't tell us what side of center you are. Yet, I do appreciate your centrist approach. I've heard it mentioned, and it has been proven in polls, that this country, as a whole, is center right. I tend to agree. Yes, both political parties are torn between the centrists and the extremes. Yet it is from the extreme sides where ideas are born. They permeate the debate and then the entire side will get caught up in the argument and then villainized

I think the founding fathers understood these oscillations and created a government that could withstand such pressures. In my mind, I think it should take a "constitutional amendment", so to speak, to change laws. Administrational directive, legislative agreement and funding, and judicial affirmation. The current whim of the electorate should not be an issue with our lawmakers.

Long live gridlock!!!!!!!!!!!

perkinke

You might be surprised. Over the years I've voted more Republican than Democrat, unfortunately in my opinion that party is in the same circumstances as the Democrats were in 2000 and 2004: unable to field a reasonable candidate that scares me less than the alternative (hence my votes for GWB both those elections). One of the Republicans I really believed in in our state legislature resigned two years ago in large part due to the behavior of his own party, their adherence to ideology over the public good greatly frustrated him (losing the evenly split legislature was unfortunate). Unfortunately, rather than choosing the option closer to him to fill out the remainder of his term a person was chosen who the opposing party thought they could beat more easily. They're wrong and the playing of politics was a gross disservice to our community and state.

As for the country being center right as a WHOLE, I think you're hard pressed to make that argument. Socially the country is trending more to the traditional left as evidenced by the increasing support for same-sex marriage, decreasing importance of structured religion and immigration reform that makes allowances for those already here. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx; http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307853-poll-55-percent-support-same-sex-marriage; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/13/fox-news-poll-voters-want-immigration-reform/; http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/21/section-1-opinions-about-major-issues/; http://religions.pewforum.org/reports)

Economically I would certainly agree that the country trends towards the more fiscally conservative side, as I tend to (with the notable exceptions of healthcare and some safety net, though both those opinions are qualified support). I somewhat agree with you on the value of extremists in pushing debate, the problem is that they have too much power right now over the moderates. Moderates are the ones who actually achieve changes and productivity (Washington vs Hamilton, MLK Jr. vs Malcolm X, Earl Warren vs William Douglas). I'm not sure what you mean by a "Constitutional Amendment" to change laws, I'm curious about that would you expand on that?

beatnic

perkinke:

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Constitutional Amendment" to change laws, I'm curious about that would you expand on that?

Just that it should be very difficult to write any new laws, and that they be argued fully before laws are written. How old is Roe v Wade? And its' still being argued. Patriot Act? Pushed that through a little too fast, maybe? Oh, and let's not forget ACA, we're still trying to read it to find out what's in it? All three of these issues were pushed through with the support of an emotional wing of a political movement, hell bent on winning the political game.

perkinke

beatnic:

perkinke:

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Constitutional Amendment" to change laws, I'm curious about that would you expand on that?

Just that it should be very difficult to write any new laws, and that they be argued fully before laws are written. How old is Roe v Wade? And its' still being argued. Patriot Act? Pushed that through a little too fast, maybe? Oh, and let's not forget ACA, we're still trying to read it to find out what's in it? All three of these issues were pushed through with the support of an emotional wing of a political movement, hell bent on winning the political game.

Ahhh, okay, I see what you're saying. Roe v. Wade is sort of in a class of its own, I was trying to think of another similar issue and the only one that comes to mind is pre-civil war slavery. Otherwise I agree, and things like that USED to be taken much more slowly. One of the dominant theories, at least in my professional circles, is that the rushes are due in large part to the 24-hr news cycle. legislators used to have nights and weekends to work through compromises and think things through before they reached the nightly news. Now? Not so much.

beatnic

perkinke:

beatnic:

perkinke:

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Constitutional Amendment" to change laws, I'm curious about that would you expand on that?

Just that it should be very difficult to write any new laws, and that they be argued fully before laws are written. How old is Roe v Wade? And its' still being argued. Patriot Act? Pushed that through a little too fast, maybe? Oh, and let's not forget ACA, we're still trying to read it to find out what's in it? All three of these issues were pushed through with the support of an emotional wing of a political movement, hell bent on winning the political game.

Ahhh, okay, I see what you're saying. Roe v. Wade is sort of in a class of its own, I was trying to think of another similar issue and the only one that comes to mind is pre-civil war slavery. Otherwise I agree, and things like that USED to be taken much more slowly. One of the dominant theories, at least in my professional circles, is that the rushes are due in large part to the 24-hr news cycle. legislators used to have nights and weekends to work through compromises and think things through before they reached the nightly news. Now? Not so much.

I don't think our current crop of legislators are very learned people, on either side.

perkinke

Finally, something we completely agree on.

kuzi16

phobicsquirrel:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/16/republican-party-officials-to-vote-on-whether-to-boycott-cnn-nbc-over-clinton/

lol, RNC wants to boycott and not even have anything to do with cbs and nbc during presidential debates if they go a head with a clinton non-fiction story about her life. Talk about little babies. I don't even think Clinton has said she is running. I hope she does and hope it does air, then what are they going to do, it'll really hurt them with voters. Though I don't want clinton as POTUS I do find this really, really pathetic and so 1st grade.

you're sourcing FOX news?

that cant be trusted. i disregard your entire argument over it.


after the number of times ive seen you say that to others im surprised you believe that story.

or are facts actually facts no matter where they come from and you are now letting others reference FOX news without ridicule?



but seriously, a boycott will do nothing and is pointless.

i do understand where they are coming from, but i just cant get that worked up over it. its pretty obvious that those stations lean to the left as it is. how is that news? how is that something to get worked up over NOW as apposed to before or later?

either way, almost all TV news is Junk. i dont watch or endorse any of it.

Ken_Light

I see what you did here. It's funny. I mean, it IS a joke, right? Because the democrats were crying over a rodeo clown? Good one.

fla-gypsy

After the biased moderators the impartial media (LOL) has fielded this is no surprise. These organizations have made it clear they are biased to begin with their dishonest reporting and debates are for the low information voter to begin with. People with a brain are able to read policy statements and make up there own minds without the need for the media to "help" them or record who got the most zingers in.

Amos_Umwhat

Well, what if the network balances everything out by showing Ronald Reagan in the old "Bedtime for Bonzo" movies?

jadelt

fla-gypsy:

After the biased moderators the impartial media (LOL) has fielded this is no surprise. These organizations have made it clear they are biased to begin with their dishonest reporting and debates are for the low information voter to begin with. People with a brain are able to read policy statements and make up there own minds without the need for the media to "help" them or record who got the most zingers in.

Good thought, but there are far too many voters who dont have a clue about the issues. Got news for you, the low information voters do NOT watch CNN, FOX or MSNBC. Not enough "people with a brain"

webmost

phobicsquirrel:

if they go a head with a clinton non-fiction story about her life.

(sic)

Has anyone seen this non-fiction story? How non=fiction will it be? Will it, for instance, ask how is that Hillary nearly never showed her face at Rose yet billed more hours on Whitewater than anyone else? Will it ask how she turned a thou into a hundred thou with Tyson's help when she never even contributed the first grand? Or what Tyson got in return? Will it ask how she came in possession of 900 FBI dossiers of political opponents and to what purpose? Will it inquire why she rifled Vince Foster's desk before his body was found? Will it be followed by a separate two hour long documentary (cause it would require a whole show) unraveling the scores of mysterious suicides, murders, and fatal accidents which befell Clinton bodyguards, business associates, and gals about to spill the beans on Willy? Will the name Craig Livingstone even come up at all? Or how much money did she make travelling round the country on our dime touting a health care plan thus driving down health insurance stocks while investing in those stocks before they rebounded from a health care plan so pathetically flawed that it bombed in her own party? Or even so tame a matter as why a gal from Illinois living in Arkansas would best represent New York?

What do you think, phobe? Shall we make a wager whether this documentary turns out more heroine worship than non-fiction?

To me, the issue is not whether these children want to take their ball and go home. That's plain. They don't know what else to do. No. The issue is how flawed is the media? Why is mainstream media so biased? That fact itself is undeniable except by the deluded. But why? I have my theory why. What's yours?

raisindot

webmost:

phobicsquirrel:

if they go a head with a clinton non-fiction story about her life.

(sic)

Has anyone seen this non-fiction story? How non=fiction will it be? Will it, for instance, ask how is that Hillary nearly never showed her face at Rose yet billed more hours on Whitewater than anyone else? Will it ask how she turned a thou into a hundred thou with Tyson's help when she never even contributed the first grand? Or what Tyson got in return? Will it ask how she came in possession of 900 FBI dossiers of political opponents and to what purpose? Will it inquire why she rifled Vince Foster's desk before his body was found? Will it be followed by a separate two hour long documentary (cause it would require a whole show) unraveling the scores of mysterious suicides, murders, and fatal accidents which befell Clinton bodyguards, business associates, and gals about to spill the beans on Willy? Will the name Craig Livingstone even come up at all? Or how much money did she make travelling round the country on our dime touting a health care plan thus driving down health insurance stocks while investing in those stocks before they rebounded from a health care plan so pathetically flawed that it bombed in her own party? Or even so tame a matter as why a gal from Illinois living in Arkansas would best represent New York?

What do you think, phobe? Shall we make a wager whether this documentary turns out more heroine worship than non-fiction?

I'm sure other media outlets will take up the ball to run your version, and godspeed to them to take their best shot. I'd be very interesting in finding out what true FACTS (rather than conjectures and conspiracy theories) about HRC such investigations reveal.

Then again, did we ever get any truthful, deep investigations from either the left or right media of Dubya Bush's cocaine usage, his unexplained long periods of AWOL during his military service, his reported infidelities, and his totally failed business ventures that Daddy had to rescue him from? Not that I remember.

Did we ever get any truthful, deep investigations from the left or right into Mitt Romney's business practices at Bain Capital, his deceptive practice of keeping himself listed as president of Bain on legal documents and prospectuses when he claims he left the company? Where his $100 million IRA came from? Exactly how much he had parked away in overseas accounts?

Let's face it--neither the left or right wing media has done ANY genuine, deep, fact-based, Pulitzer quality background investigations of ANY presidential candidates or their questionable actions in office since Watergate.